Sunday, May 13, 2007

Can complementary and alternative medicine be subjected to scientific scrutiny?

It’s often said that the debates over alternative medicine are pointless because there is really no alternative medicine; there’s only medicine that has been proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. At first glance the notion seems sound. Simply subject an alternative claim to scientific investigation. If it proves out it becomes mainstream, otherwise it is rejected. If only it were so simple! The reality is that little has been settled despite many years and hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to alternative medicine research. I offer examples here of why this is so.

Promoters of unscientific claims often reject ordinary scientific standards for experimental design and evidenceThe American Medical Student Association, the largest and most influential organization of medical students, promotes many unproven methods. In their web pages on integrative, complementary and alternative medicine they suggest that currently accepted scientific methods may not be optimal to study alternative medicine. Moreover, they imply that complementary and alternative medicine should be adopted now, without waiting for definitive evidence, with this statement: “For most CAM therapies, the final word is not yet in on their effectiveness. But the medical community cannot wait for the final word; they need to know what patients are using now and if it is effective. Many primary care doctors are opening clinics with CAM practitioners. These integrated medical centers provide one of the best learning tools for current physicians and may be the most efficient and effective way to blend conventional and unconventional medicine.”

Even government funded CAM research is troubled with serious methodologic flawsPerhaps the best example of such flawed design is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine’s ongoing Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy as a treatment for atherosclerosis. As I pointed out in this post, many of the study sites appear to be tainted by a lack of objectivity and dubious scientific qualifications. That lack of objectivity is especially concerning because the investigators are not securely blinded.

Research on complementary and alternative methods is conducted without regard to biologic plausibilityNumerous subjects of CAM “research” are so implausible they would require rewriting the chemistry and physics books. These include claims that a mystical force remains in water after solute is diluted out (homeopathy), imaginary claims of “energy fields” which can’t be measured or detected (various energy healing modalities) and purported energy channels that have no basis in anatomy (the meridians of acupuncture and related methods). It’s as if the NCCAM is willing to “study” any claim, no matter how preposterous, if there’s consumer interest and available funding.

Why is this problematic? Because the test of plausibility is an important safeguard, without which baseless health claims can be subject to clinical studies, occasionally passing the test of statistical significance and yielding “positive” results by chance variation. That might not be a major problem were it not for positive publication bias in quackery promoting journals which receive favorable consideration for Medline indexing, thus inflating dubious claims subjected to meta-analyses, which rely heavily on Medline searching. (See below). In consequence, woo based claims get the trappings of evidence based medicine. My principle for plausibility testing is crude but vivid: “evidence based” woo is still woo!

Government oversight is biased in favor of complementary and alternative medicineDr. Wallace Sampson, Emeritus Clinical Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, has extensively researched the procedures of journal selection by the National Library of Medicine for indexing in Medline and uncovered enormous bias in favor of CAM oriented journals which are largely promotional, uncritical and agenda driven. The whole process, it seems, is corrupted by conflicts of interest. Moreover, the FDA has a lax double standard which is favorable to the development of herbal remedies.

Evidence based medicine (EBM) has failed to remedy the many problems in CAM research. It cannot adequately address the massive agenda which drives much of the research and pays too little regard to biologic plausibility. This is due to misappropriation and misunderstanding of EBM more than any inherent failings of EBM.

3 comments:

Just wanted to respond and introduce your readers to the new option of individual science. My name is David Clymer and I am the CEO of a nation-wide Direct to Consumer Medical Lab called MyMedLab.com.

One of the huge problems today in health care is that, much like other polarizing issues, main-stream and alternative medicines line up on either side and push their own agenda at the expense of the other.

These dual agendas confuse consumers and leave them with very limited information from which to make an informed decision. At MyMedLab, we have created an affordable, convenient and completely PRIVATE way for today's consumers to access the science of medicine themselves.

We often explain what we do by telling our consumers that MyMedLab is designed to give you the tools you need to make wiser health care decisions yourself. These tools consist of the same diagnostic tests used by your doctor to evaluate your overall health.

We have used more than a decade's worth of experience operating a direct to consumer lab in the Midwest to create a consumer friendly service in health care. Our Wellness profiles were created based on an individual's age, sex and family history. This basic information is all the consumer needs to know to identify which profiles provide the most information for the common conditions associated with their specific group.

Example: Using our simple Wellness Profiles, we can tell you your cholesterol is high. What you do about it is YOUR choice. The difference with our service is that we have created a supporting service for your decisions and help you evaluate the effectiveness of those choices.

If you choose the main-stream route of Statin drugs, we give you the ability to come back 90 days later, and for only $60, provide you a re-evaluation of both your Lipid Profile AND your Liver Enzymes. Our Basic Wellness Profile (CMP,Lipid Profile) can be used to make sure the Statins are working AND not damaging your Liver.

If you choose the alternative route of Red Yeast Rice or garlic, our service allows you to use the same science to determine its effectiveness. Ninety days later you can re-evaluate and see if the alternative option you chose is working. If not, you are wasting your money.

This new option for consumers gives them the ability to be the subject of an experiment of ONE, THEMSELF. Many of the problems with both Alternative care and the studies that evaluate them is that alternative solutions that work for some, may have little to know affect on others. This PERSONAL science is the best way for the individual to see for themselves if their method of choice is working.

We believe that personal and private medicine is going to pay a huge part in the future of routine health care. To see all the options we provide consumers today, visit us online at www.mymedlab.com

Going the alternative route can be a scary decision. You want to make sure that you choose a reputable company with a good quality product. At swansonvitamins.com, there are many different health products and vitamins to choose from. All of which are carefully tested to make sure you are getting the best possible product out there. We also offer resources to learn more about what certain products can offer and where to start if you have never bought supplements. To see everything we have to offer visit swansonvitamins.com today!